UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4598

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO LAMAR WATKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(8:12-cr-00304-TMC-1)

Submitted:

March 31, 2014

Before WYNN and

Circuit Judge.

DIAZ,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

May 9, 2014

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan M. Milling, MILLING LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellant.
William N. Nettles, United States
Attorney,
Carrie
Fisher
Sherard,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Antonio

Lamar

Watkins

appeals

from

his

convictions

after a jury trial for drug and firearm offenses.

On appeal,

Watkins only argues that the district court erred in denying his
motion to suppress evidence.

Finding no error, we affirm.

In considering the denial of a suppression motion, we

review the district courts legal determinations de novo and its
factual findings for clear error.

United States v. Kelly, 592

F.3d 586, 589 (4th Cir. 2010).

The court view[s] the facts in

the

the

light

most

favorable

to

Government,

as

the

party

prevailing below.

United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 534

(4th

The

Cir.

2013).

court

also

defer[s]

to

the

district

courts credibility findings, as it is the role of the [trial]

court to observe witnesses and weigh their credibility during a
pre-trial motion to suppress.

United States v. Griffin, 589

F.3d 148, 150-51 n.1 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
We

have

reviewed

the

transcript

of

the

motion

to

suppress hearing and the district courts detailed ruling on the

motion from the bench and find no clear error in the district
courts finding of facts or error in its legal conclusions.
defer to its credibility findings.

We

Because the district court

did not err in denying the motion to suppress, we affirm the

judgment.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

2

legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED